Appeal 2006-2334
Application 09/909,913
The Examiner contends Margolis teaches a method of pressing
boneless meats wherein “the pressing means including rolling devices and
pressure plates” but does not teach “two pliable conveyor belt surfaces”
(Answer 6). The Examiner concludes it would have been prima facie
“obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pliable belts
and rollers” of Peterson into Margolis’ method “since both are directed to
methods of pressing meat” and Margolis teaches carrying out a pressing step
by any economical and effective means that can include rollers such as the
rollers of Peterson which “would have provided multiple presses and thus
forced the heated meat of Margolis to exude more juices” (id. 6-7).
Appellants contend Peterson is not anticipatory because the reference
discloses a device which mangles and mashes frozen meat chunks between a
pair of converging conveyor belts to produce thin slices, wherein the
apparatus maintains “a channel-shaped space of flat rectangular cross section
and of decreasing height in the direction of conveyance (Br. 11; Reply Br. 5-
6). Appellants contend the conveyor belts are not formed of pliable material
which conform to the shape of the frozen meat chunks and “must completely
resist any such conformation,” pointing out that the plastic and rubber
materials for the belts are reinforced (Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 6-7 and 9-10).
Appellants contend Peterson discloses at column 3, lines 15-32, that because
of the manner the product is processed “the connective tissue of the product
does not rupture,” (Reply Br. 12-13). Appellants contend Margolis discloses
a method of heating meat to remove liquefied fat therefrom by the
application of pressure during which the elevated temperature of the meat is
maintained so the fat remains liquefied (Br.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013